For what it's worth, this article is not about "$name diets." Rather, it is about a researcher's use of questionable methods. The researcher's field happens to

For what it's worth, this article is not about "$name diets." Rather, it is about a researcher's use of questionable methods. The researcher's field happens to be psychological factors affecting eating behavior, but his questionable methods can be/are used in other disciplines (as pointed out in the article). And based on the summaries in the article, the researcher seems to be in complete agreement with your rant: his studies are not about what to eat, but how to more easily achieve the intake vs. expenditure balance (for example, by using smaller plates to make it psychologically easier to limit portion size, or giving low-calorie foods a name that makes them more psychologically attractive). So, it's hard to see what in the article this rant is responding to.